First, let me apologize i thought it was another poster who had linked to that.

Second, i addressed it, i didn’t ignore it. You ignored my rebuttal. But i will try again here:

Even what you quote here doesn’t say the court ruled it was true.

You’re just exposing your own ignorance, as often the court doesn’t bother to determine if the plaintiffs claims are true, they just assume they’re true and then rule they don’t have a case because they aren’t claiming someone broke the law.

This doesn’t say it is true, only that it doesn’t matter whether it’s true because it has no bearing on their ruling.

I’m blocking you now. Good bye.

Intellectual coward.

I literally pointed you to the court case where the court said the DNC was rigging the convention against Sanders

No you didn’t. You made a claim about a court case that doesn’t exist. You didn’t link to anything or even name it.

Your eyes literally won’t allow you to see

You’re right, my eyes won’t allow me to see the fantasy you’ve created.

You’ve got to be a troll. We’re done here.

Don’t blame me for your inability to support your claims.

So you ignore the facts you don’t like, and take the ones you do. And I’m projecting…

How can I ignore that which you did not provide? All you’ve done throughout this is give your opinion about what happened, no actual facts. I would be more than happy to address any fact you have, because having had this discussion so many times already, I’m pretty confident I’m on the right side of it, and if not, I would like to learn how so and change my position. As I already have.

Why the fuck do you think Wasserman Schultz stepped down?

You made a claim as to why, so why not back it up?

hat is your explanation if it’s not the scandal involving her bias as chair exposed in the emails?

You’re claim was that she tried to rig the convention against Sanders, and you’re already backtracking it. Amazing.

What possible benefit to you gain from this denial of established reality?

lol You really have no idea how out-classed you are in this. I clearly challenged you to actually provide some facts, and all you are doing is attacking me instead.

Don’t worry, I’ve had this same type of discussion with hundreds of Trump/Sander reality-deniers before, and I know no way in hell you can admit to yourself at this point that you’ve been fooled for so long. But It’s sill funny watching you squirm.

Again, let me be clear: provide your sources for your empty ass claims that I’ve already called out. Anything short of that is an admission that you realize the facts are not on your side.

Ohh, a political “scientist” said it, must be a fact.

No, a political scientist didn’t “say” it, they did a study with an attempt to objectively determine what actually happened, and the evidence led to a certain conclusion. You just don’t like that the evidence contradicts how you feel so you’re sarcastically trying to hand-wave it away. This isn’t to say I know for a fact that what they say is the truth, but their evidence-based position is 1000x more reliable than your feelings.

I will now pretend that Wasserman Schultz didn’t actively admit to trying to rig the convention against Sanders and that the court literally said in plain english that’s what was happening.

Neither of these statements is true.

The way you people try to rewrite history is insane.

Projection. Notice how I’ve been providing facts and links, all you’ve done is provide how you feel about it. You are just like the Trump supporters that think they know the 2020 election was rigged against Trump. It turns out cultists are not all that different from other cultists.

I’m sure the facts don’t matter to you, but I’ll post it anyway just in case someone else comes in here and thinks your argument is rooted in reality:

"A 2018 book by political scientists John M. Sides, Michael Tesler and Lynn Vavreck found that the amount of news coverage Sanders received exceeded his share in the national polls in 2015. Throughout the campaign as a whole, their analysis showed that his “media coverage and polling numbers were strongly correlated.”[1] They write that “Sanders’s appeal, like Trump’s, depended on extensive and often positive media coverage.”[1] Furthermore, “media coverage brought Sanders to a wider audience and helped spur his long climb in the polls by conveying the familiar tale of the surprisingly successful underdog. Meanwhile, Clinton received more negative media coverage.”[1]

I’m sure you’ll be able to back this up with some facts.

You keep throwing shit out but don’t back any of it up. Why would i continue to follow your ever shifting justifications?

If you actually think Sanders is the better candidate then you should agree that most normal people aren’t aware of why.

One thing i will address is this. I understand that everyone has differing priorities, desires for me, and opinions than me. Clinton would have been a perfectly fine POTUS, so it’s not hard for me to accept that other people have a different opinion.

The question i originally addressed was whether the DNC screwed Sanders. There is no evidence that they did anything to him that would have overcome the shellacking he took.

You think she would have nominated people like kagan or people like gorsuch? Did you see how these votes went down partisan lines? I see for your other responses to me that reality ain’t necessarily your thing, but just try to think about this rationally for a second.

That being said, if sanders had won the wh, his choices would have likely been even better.

Clinton won her primary through voter suppression by the DNC and corporate

I’m sure you’ll be able to back this up with some facts.

If she “demolished” Sanders, and then lost to Donald Trump, that means Trump is therefore the “best” candidate. That’s your logic here.

At no point did i say she was the best candidate. I even explicitly said that i voted for Sanders, implying i thought he was the better choice. I’m just pointing out the reality that democratic voters overwhelmingly supported Clinton over Sanders.

The media hyped up the race. An actual race is far more profitable for them than the reality that Clinton was clearly going to win from the start.

Sanders also go the most positive coverage in the media.

30% of the time opinions are 9-0.

sometimes they all rule the same way.

It decidedly is not.

Lol

I argued with the notion that all of the 3 justices were far right.

So quibbling about how far right they actually are, rather than the actual point that the court is obviously much further right than it would have been had Clinton won.

I kind of feel justified in my “strawmen.”

It’s the point i made, and one of the arguments you used.

Court overturns roe v wade.

“Well, it’s kind of ridiculous to point out that the court has shifted to the right due to trump appointees because sometimes they all rule the same way.”

I explained this in the first sentence of my comment.

Nor is that what i did. Or wait…are you arguing that they aren’t right wing…because then…wow, I’m not sure what to say.

The fact that it doesn’t always line up left right doesn’t change the fact that these did.

You’re just being purposely obtuse

Projection. Find me one person who didn’t vote because of the superdelegates or voted a certain way because of the superdelegates. After that we can discuss whether or not we think it’s reasonable to believe it may have swung in 12 points.

Hillary was the DNC’s person and they did what they could to give her advantages.

Certainly she was their person, but there is scant evidence that they did anything to make this happen. The emails would have revealed a whole lot more if that was the case. Remember, one of the worst things that came out of the emails that was a focal point of the complaints, was saying mean things about sanders. Thats how bad it was. Mean things. Maybe this is all “they could to give her advantages” but if that’s the case then the whole argument is silly.

On most of these cases, the left side has voted one way and the right the other. The other poster made the ridiculous claim that had Clinton instead appointed 3 justices, giving the court of 5-4 left majority, that it still would have gone down the same way.

What opinions gorsuch has written has no bearing on this. I’m not even sure why you’re bringing it up.

She demolished him in votes. You take super delegates out, she still destroys him.

Pretending that you know that it was meant to influence the voters is nonsense, but pretending that this actually swayed enough that it might have made it even close is just downright ridiculous.

So you are saying that millions of people were swayed by super delegates? It was extremely early, NH early, that people started getting pumped that sanders could win. The media hyped up the race despite it never being close.

It’s grasping at straws to claim that this is why she demolished him.

Literally all of these have been a long ideological lines. Do you really think she would have appointed conservatives? Are "muh both sides"ers really this out of touch with reality?

One of the earliest was NH, which he did very well in, and which gave rise to “sanders has a chance!” And really shocked everyone.

He probably did way better because he was hyped as having a legitimate shot after that, he even though it clearly wasn’t the case.

She demolished him. The order of the voting had little to do with it, if not possibly even helping him.

She demolished sanders in the primary. Get over it. The belief that she only won because of some dirty tricks or that sanders was screwed is just nonsense. I wish he had won, and i voted for him, but unfortunately reality tells a much different story. This belief he was screwed is no different than the belief that trump was screwed in 2020.